ultimafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Need a better term for "real-life"
I originally brought this up at Talk:Real-Life_references_and_Easter_Eggs#The_name_could_stand_improvement but I see that it appears in a number of places. Like I said on that discussion page, "real-life" sounds to me like a rather adolescent way of expressing "something not in a specified fictional context". I go on to talk about how the Kilrathi are not to be found in so-called real-life. Terilem went on to say that that particular article could be called "References and Easter Eggs", which could work, but it doesn't solve the problem of what term to use elsewhere. I suggested "out-world" or "out-game", which would include the Kilrathi who don't come from real-life, but aren't native to Ultima. It would also seem to work in the other situation I've seen. AngusM 03:53, May 29, 2010 (UTC) :I've racked my brains over this one and I can't really come up with any other alternatives to describe... um... real life. The ones that immediately spring to mind are "out-of-game" or "out-of-character," but the latter is probably more suited to UO than the wiki. I suppose "real world" isn't much of an improvement, either. I'd probably favour "out-of-game" myself, if I had to pick one... or possibly even something like "Non-Ultima." --Terilem 14:33, May 29, 2010 (UTC) ::"Non-Ultima" wouldn't work, since Richard Garriott, for instance, is by no mean non-Ultima, but he is out-game or out-of-game, and phenomena like that are frequently called "real-life. AngusM 18:19, May 29, 2010 (UTC) :::"Real-world?" "Factual?" Maybe we're overthinking this. --Polygoncount 18:22, May 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::We won't be if we come up w/"real-world". The Kilrathi aren't any more real-world than they are real-life. ::::I like "out-game", but I suppose "out-of-game" is likely to be less confusing. AngusM 04:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC) :::::I think part of this debate would be solved by use using Lojban (I'm not actually suggesting we use it). I believe there are actually two issues being discussed here :::::*1) Ambiguity of the "Real-Life references and Easter Eggs" :::::*2) Different term for "real-life" :::::So, my thoughts on (1) is that "Real-Life" is supposed to be applied to "references" but not to "Easter Eggs". Hence why the Kilrathi example given by AngusM is causing problems. It is not a "Real-Life Easter Egg" it is an "Easter Egg". This is an inherent problem with English structure. I would even go so far as to say that "Easter Eggs" was added to the title by the original author specifically to include things like Kilrathi example and thus avoid this very argument. To retain the exact meaning of the original author we could invert the article name to "Easter Eggs and Real-Life References" which should remove the ambiguity. :::::For (2) I think "Real-life" is a widely accepted term on the internet. As long as our usage for it falls under this definition: "On the Internet, "real life" refers to life in the real world." I would have no problem with it's use on here. I did a quick search and out usage seems to be proper (except for the aforementioned ambiguous problem). -- Fenyx4 15:19, May 31, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Ah yes, "Easter Eggs and Real-Life References" probably would have expressed the original sentiment, but avoided the ambiguity. But even though "real-life" is appropriate in some Internet media, do you think it's the best term to be using in this one? AngusM 20:30, May 31, 2010 (UTC)